what evidence do you have, that made you come to the belief and conclusion, no powerful, all-knowing, eternal God, creator of the heavens, and the earth, exists?

I, personally, have never made any de facto claim that "God does not exist." I have only ever simply offered my lack of belief in such an entity. As such, I am not required to provide any "evidence" of my belief - or lack thereof.

Quote:

P1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.C1: Therefor, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

This is a matter if your own personal opinion, which you are construing as a matter of fact. Why is it so unreasonable to presume that "X" occurred as a matter of chance? Even in chaos, there is an underlying order that, oftentimes, we are not able to piece together and comprehend; this does not necessitate the involvement of any "sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful" anything. You run enough red lights, you're bound to get hit - would you call that the will of some external, otherwise-uninvolved entity, or chance?

Furthermore, for all we know, this "sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful" being could be a mentally-retarded can of chicken noodle soup that threw some blue paint on its own fecal matter and "tada!", we have "X".

Quote:

P2. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

This is a presumption. For all you know, as I just stated, "God" is mentally-handicapped, and created the universe when he left a snake floating in the cosmic toilet, quite by accident.

Quote:

C2: Therefor, God exists.

This wholly depends on how, exactly, you define "God." Based upon your presumption that God is "sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful," in contrast to my "retarded, habitual shitter" definition, I just don't see how your logic works - unless you, also, see images in the things you leave in the toilet!

Quote:

why do you think they do not follow ?

Okay. Let's put it this way:

P1. I am simply far too awesome to have been born of lame parents.C1. Therefore, I must have been born of awesome parents.P2. My parents are not lame.C2. Therefore, my parents are awesome.

Doesn't make it true, because my parents (and, in fact, everyone who shares my last name, in my experience) are quite lame.

Quote:

The theory of evolution does not answer much,and what it answers, it answers badly.

And the theory of creationism answers less, in a logical fashion.

Quote:

there is no evidence for that assertion.

You did notice the word "theoretical" in GillesdeRais's post, there, right? Or do you have selective hearing/reading, as most Christians tend to?

Quote:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of itsexistence.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of itsexistence. that cause was God.

And how, exactly, do we know that the universe ever began at all? The first law of thermodynamics, after all, does state that energy can be neither created nor destroyed - oh, except the universe, apparently. That's the exception. *scoff*

Quote:

The ET does not explain how first live came to be. How the solar system got tuned to life.How the Universe got tuned to exist, actually.How the universe came to be. Since it had a beginning, it must have a cause.BTW. Macro-evolution is very unlikely to be true. Nobody brought hard evidence to sustain that theory. Its far to be a fact, as many times asserted.

Creationism explains, in fairy-tale form, how life came to be. As far as the universe having a "beginning," which is assuming the Universe created, this is a direct contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics, once again - so it fails to explain such a "beginning" without breaking all sorts of logical boundaries.

And Creationism, moreover, is so far from fact, "God" may very just as well be a goddamned Jedi.

...and why do I feel like I'm talking in circles? OH! That's right; I'm responding to someone with H.U.A. Syndrome.

I can see where you're coming from...and let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that natural scientists couldn't provide an explanation for how the first living being developed, what caused the creation of earth, or even why exactly apples tend to fall down from their trees and not up into the clouds.

My argument is not a gap filler, as you might wish to be. In contrary. BECAUSE we have the data regarding the need of fine tuning of the universe on hand, BECAUSE we know today, that the universe had a absolute beginning, we can make a certain deduction, God is the BEST explanation for the existence of our universe, and our earth, and life. There is no gap filler anymore.

Originally Posted By: ballbreaker

The lack of a sound explanation does not give us recourse to assuming one.

There is actually the opposite today, a sound explanation how we came to be, through a extraordinary finely tuned universe to life. Thats, why a Tuner is the best explanation, we to exist.

1) If our universe is random, then it is very unlikely that it permits life.(2)Our universe permits life.(3)Therefore,the existence of our universe is very likely due to something other than chance.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Originally Posted By: ballbreaker

The reason atheists always ask theists to demonstrate God's existence is precisely because they know the theists can't do it...if they could, this "debate" would be over long ago.

thats why i came here to show evidence, not proofs.

Originally Posted By: ballbreaker

The recent intrusion into the natural sciences by xtian theorists of 'intelligent design' is embarassing the whole idea of God...

i don't know why it should. Actually, i think ID'ers do a pretty fine job. Just think about the fibonacci curve.

If 'intelligent design' only 'succeeds' in the "FirstCause" department by asserting "God", then what exactly does this hypothesis help us with? We neither possess a better understanding of the natural world nor an accurate one, since the "absence" of a known "first cause" does not, indeed, imply simply "God".

What alternative to God do you suggest ? I see only one alternative : Nothing. Everything coming from absolutely nothing. Does that sound to you ?

I'm going to keep it very brief, as I have the feeling you won't be around here much longer.

In short: you've completely missed my point. I even took the pains to grant you certain scenarios just to show the epistemological limits of your account.

Fundamentally, you make the mistake of overextending yourself by 1) presuming that life needs 'fine tuning', rather than humbly accepting the notion that the seeming impossibility or improbability of phenomena forces us to remain agnostic at best until useful explanations arise2) making the further (and perhaps this is the most insulting) presumption that even if your claims that "God" is what is responsible for these "fine tunings", that this somehow has anything to do with 'its' anthrophomorphization by various religions. We could dumb this down by suggesting simply that you reveal your own ignorance when you opt to be a 'born again xtian' rather than, say, a Muslim. You've recklessly transformed God from a noumenal concept to a dirty, phenomenal 'entity'3) assuming that we can truly, objectively, certainly "know" things. The very notion of 'causality' and all the problems entailed should be humbling whenever you think you "know the truth".

Neither you nor the more efficient natural scientists (i.e. the ones genuinely interested in learning) will ever discover "truth". The problems of causality make this 'objective' knowledge impossible.

But really, all this stuff can just go over your head...the real deal is why on earth there would be any connection between an intelligent creator and what your religious beliefs have to say about this entity. It is really this insoluble dilemma that forces me not to take you seriously.

I for one enjoy this type of discussion (if it can be called that) since it pits the Abrahamic view against the Satanic. It provides for someone like myself, input and fortification of my evolving beliefs.

Unfortunately, it is very unbalanced on the side of the Abrahamic. Which makes me wonder, why have we not seen a slew of Theologians present fighting their war against Satan and His minion? Surely, a forum such as this should be priority for their eradication of the Beast?

It would be of great significance if the members here (who I consider incredibly adept at defending Satanism) were met with solid minds of the Church.

Time to chime in with my two cents on "design". Try being a weather forecaster...you'll see there is no flippin' design, only random, natural events that lead to one outcome or another. Just one example I'll throw out there because I live it on a daily basis.

Either that, or the "designer" flunked out of grade school art class...

This is my last comment here, but I couldn’t let you pass on without imparting a few words.

You’re a joke. You dance around questions that have been put before you repeatedly. Your arguments contain flawed logic and you often refer to things as being fact, when they are “in fact” pseudo science concepts dreamt up by other idiots such as yourself.

You have proven nothing. You have contributed nothing. You are nothing.

On any other day I would probably entertain the OP and respond to his obviously baited post but for some reason I don't feel like it. Maybe the novelty has worn off or maybe I just don't care anymore.

I seem to remember a thread not unlike this one from a few months back. If I remember correctly it was made by some fellow named Ichtus and ended up going in circles and getting locked. I am sure it has happened before and am willing to bet that it will happen again.

The problem is that disgusing religion with the faithful can be a rather fruitless endeavour and often times it is. They are bound to their faith and blinded to reality. To be fair; there are people here, myself included, who tend to be rather headstrong(stubborn) about their beliefs as well.

I guess fun is fun.

Angelo: Do you really care why "we" don't believe in God? Do you think maybe you might be able to make a few converts? Did your church put you up to this or are you just a troll?

Fundamentally, you make the mistake of overextending yourself by 1) presuming that life needs 'fine tuning', rather than humbly accepting the notion that the seeming impossibility or improbability of phenomena forces us to remain agnostic at best until useful explanations arise

One of the most compelling evidences for the idea of cosmological intelligent design is the fact that the universe is finely tuned. In other words, the universe's physical constants are precisely the right values that are needed in order to sustain life.

Consider the gravitational force constant, G. If you have taken a physics course, you may remember a familiar equation for gravitational force: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2, where G = 6.67 * 10^-11. If G were slightly tweaked, complex life could not exist.

Other examples of finely tuned parameters are the strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, electromagnetic force constant, and ratio of electron to proton mass. If these parameters were even slightly smaller or slightly larger, chemistry (as we know it) would not be possible, and molecules would probably not even exist. It would be almost impossible for life of any kind to be sustained in these conditions.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Personally, and quite simply, "God" - in the Judeo-Christian fashion - commands that we, Man, must abstain from most every pleasurable action that we can come up with - all of which are natural.

that is simply and straight - not true. If God gives a commandment, its not to take something from us - but to prevent us to do things, that are not good for us. God as the life giver wants us to have a fulfilled, meaningful, and blessed life. This is what i experience.

[quote=Wikipedia]In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I have not asked you to explain WHAT a Troll is, but why you think i behave like one.